This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/14/2019 at 09:30:30 (UTC).

MDR BOAT CENTRAL LP ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/22/2017 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by MDR BOAT CENTRAL LP against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8063

  • Filing Date:

    12/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

TERESA A. BEAUDET

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MDR BOAT CENTRAL L.P.

MDR BOAT CENTRAL LLC

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-25

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY OF

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

4/23/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/9/2018: Minute Order

PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATIONS OF MATTHEW D. HINKS AND ANDREW I. SHADOFF IN SUPPORT

5/9/2018: PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATIONS OF MATTHEW D. HINKS AND ANDREW I. SHADOFF IN SUPPORT

Minute Order

6/5/2018: Minute Order

INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE ("IDC") STATEMENT*

8/9/2018: INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE ("IDC") STATEMENT*

Response

1/23/2019: Response

Order

1/24/2019: Order

Declaration

1/24/2019: Declaration

Declaration

2/4/2019: Declaration

Request for Judicial Notice

2/4/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Opposition

2/4/2019: Opposition

Reply

2/8/2019: Reply

Minute Order

2/19/2019: Minute Order

Order

2/19/2019: Order

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

2/19/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Declaration

4/17/2019: Declaration

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1/8/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

12/22/2017: SUMMONS

34 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • at 4:00 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by Los Angeles, County of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Filed by Los Angeles, County of (Defendant); Board of Supervisors for the County of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Declaration (of R. Lee in Support of Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Written Discovery and to Supplement Privilege Log); Filed by Los Angeles, County of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Los Angeles, County of (Defendant); Board of Supervisors for the County of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • Order (re plaintiffs motion to compel further responses); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
67 More Docket Entries
  • 04/09/2018
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2018
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by L.P. MDR Boat Central (Plaintiff); MDR Boat Central, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • DEFENDANTS' 1. NOTICE OF DEMURRER; 2. DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; AND 3. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by L.P. MDR Boat Central (Plaintiff); MDR Boat Central, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by L.P. MDR Boat Central (Plaintiff); MDR Boat Central, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC688063    Hearing Date: March 12, 2020    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

mdr boat central, l.p., et al.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

county of los angeles, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 688063

Hearing Date:

March 12, 2020

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Defendants County of Los Angeles and Board of Supervisors for the County of Los Angeles (jointly, “Defendants”) move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

The Court did not timely receive the required binder/spiral compilations with courtesy copies of all moving, opposing, and reply papers and all supporting or related documents. Accordingly, the Court is continuing the hearing on the MSJ/MSA. The Clerk will be in contact with the parties to reset the hearing date.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: March 11, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC688063    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

mdr boat central, l.p., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

county of los angeles, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 688063

Hearing Date:

December 19, 2019

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION OF PLAINTIFF MDR BOAT CENTRAL, L.P. FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET THREE)

Background

Plaintiffs MDR Boat Central, L.P. (“MDR”) and MDR Boat Central, LLC (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) initiated the instant action on December 22, 2017 against Defendants County of Los Angeles (the “County”) and Board of Supervisors for the County of Los Angeles (the “Board”) (jointly, “Defendants”). The gravamen of the Complaint concerns certain agreements entered into between MDR and the County regarding the lease, development, and operation of a boat storage facility on County land in Marina Del Rey (the “Project”).

On June 10, 2019, MDR served Special Interrogatories, Set Three on the County, and on August 1, 2019, MDR served Special Interrogatories, Set Three on the Board. (Shadoff Decl.,

¶ 2, Exs. A, B.) On July 17, 2019, counsel for MDR emailed counsel for the County regarding the County’s overdue responses to the Special Interrogatories. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. C.) Counsel for the County requested an extension for service of the responses to July 26, 2019, to which counsel for MDR agreed. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. C.) On July 24, 2019, the County served its responses, and on July 29, 2019, the County served amended responses. (Shadoff Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Counsel for MDR found the responses deficient and met and conferred with counsel for the County. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. D.) On August 13, 2019, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) that did not resolve their dispute. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 7.) On August 30, 2019, the County served its second amended response to the Special Interrogatories. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. F.) On September 5, 2019, the Board served its responses to the Special Interrogatories. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. G.)

MDR now moves for an order compelling both the County and the Board to serve further responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set Three, Nos. 21, 22, and 23. Defendants oppose.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a) permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory if the propounding party deems that an answer is “evasive or incomplete” or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires that each answer to an interrogatory must be as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).)

Discussion

Special Interrogatory No. 21 states: Identify by name, address, telephone number and email address all PERSONS who made, lodged, transmitted or voiced any objection, opposition, complaint, or negative comment about the BOAT STORAGE PROJECT.

Special Interrogatory No. 22 states: State the substance of each objection, opposition, complaint, or negative comment referenced in your response to Special Interrogatory No. 21.

Special Interrogatory No. 23 states: Identify each objection, opposition, complaint, or negative comment referenced in your response to Special Interrogatory No. 22 that you considered in your decision to not move forward with the BOAT STORAGE PROJECT.

In response to these interrogatories, Defendants raised a number of objections. Defendants also substantively responded to these interrogatories by invoking Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 and identifying responsive, previously produced documents by Bates number. Defendants also stated that they had produced “all non-privileged documents” “in [their] possession, custody, or control located after conducting a reasonable and diligent search.” Finally, Defendants stated that the documents already produced by Defendants “contain all of the contact information within [Defendants’] possession, custody, or control of individuals and/or entities who voiced opposition to the BOAT STORAGE PROJECT.”

It is undisputed that both the County and the Board’s responses were untimely. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), untimely responses result in the waiver of “any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” However, a party may be relieved from this waiver upon the court’s determination that the party subsequently served a response in substantial compliance with sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240, and that the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc.,

§ 2030.290, subd. (a).) Relief from the waiver must be made in a separate motion. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) At the original hearing on this matter, the parties agreed to treat Defendants’ opposition to MDR’s motion to compel as the motion for relief from the waiver. The Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect in their failure to serve timely responses to the subject interrogatories. (See Levin Decl., ¶¶ 2-6.) The Court also finds that Defendants’ subsequently served responses are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants may be relieved from the section 2030.290 waiver.

Nevertheless, MDR argues that further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 21 and 22 are required because simply identifying “the writings from which the answer[s] may be derived or ascertained” does not answer the question of whether any non-written objections to the Project were made. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) The Court finds that Defendants’ responses are sufficiently Code-compliant. Special Interrogatories Nos. 21 and 22 require Defendants to identify all persons who objected to the Project and the substance of their objection, including non-written objections, and Defendants responded. The Code does not authorize the Court to compel further responses simply because the propounding party is dissatisfied with the substance of the response.

With respect to Special Interrogatory No. 23, the Court finds Defendants’ objection on the basis of the deliberative process privilege to be well-taken. The deliberative process privilege protects the “mental processes by which a given decision was reached” and “the substance of conversations, discussions, debates, deliberations and like materials reflecting advice, opinions, and recommendations by which government policy is processed and formulated.” (San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Comm’n v. Superior Court (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 159, 170-171.) “The key question in every case is whether the disclosure of materials would expose an agency’s decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency’s ability to perform its functions.” (Labor & Workforce Development Agency v. Superior Court (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 12, 27 (internal quotations omitted).) “The burden is on the [one claiming the privilege] to establish the conditions for creation of the privilege[,]”and to show that “the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.” ((Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 306.)

Here, the Court finds that the public interest in nondisclosure (of comments that the County/the Board “considered” in its decision to not move forward with the Project) outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Defendants’ objection to Special Interrogatory No. 23 on the basis of the deliberative process privilege is thus sustained.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, MDR’s motion to compel further responses is denied.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this Order.

DATED: December 19, 2019 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC688063    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

mdr boat central, l.p., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

county of los angeles, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 688063

Hearing Date:

October 31, 2019

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION OF PLAINTIFF MDR BOAT CENTRAL, L.P. FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET THREE)

Background

Plaintiffs MDR Boat Central, L.P. (“MDR”) and MDR Boat Central, LLC (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) initiated the instant action on December 22, 2017 against Defendants County of Los Angeles (the “County”) and Board of Supervisors for the County of Los Angeles (the “Board”) (jointly, “Defendants”). The gravamen of the Complaint concerns certain agreements entered into between MDR and the County regarding the lease, development, and operation of a boat storage facility on County land in Marina Del Rey (the “Project”).

On June 10, 2019, MDR served Special Interrogatories, Set Three on the County, and on August 1, 2019, MDR served Special Interrogatories, Set Three on the Board. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 2, Exs. A, B.) On July 17, 2019, counsel for MDR emailed counsel for the County regarding the County’s overdue responses to the Special Interrogatories. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. C.) Counsel for the County requested an extension for service of the responses to July 26, 2019, to which counsel for MDR agreed. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. C.) On July 24, 2019, the County served its responses, and on July 29, 2019, the County served amended responses. (Shadoff Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Counsel for MDR found the responses deficient and met and conferred with counsel for the County. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. D.) On August 13, 2019, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) that did not resolve their dispute. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 7.) On August 30, 2019, the County served its second amended response to the Special Interrogatories. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. F.) On September 5, 2019, the Board served its responses to the Special Interrogatories. (Shadoff Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. G.)

MDR now moves for an order compelling both the County and the Board to serve further responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set Three, Nos. 21, 22, and 23. Defendants oppose.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a) permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory if the propounding party deems that an answer is “evasive or incomplete” or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires that each answer to an interrogatory must be as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).)

Discussion

Special Interrogatory No. 21 states: Identify by name, address, telephone number and email address all PERSONS who made, lodged, transmitted or voiced any objection, opposition, complaint, or negative comment about the BOAT STORAGE PROJECT.

Special Interrogatory No. 22 states: State the substance of each objection, opposition, complaint, or negative comment referenced in your response to Special Interrogatory No. 21.

Special Interrogatory No. 23 states: Identify each objection, opposition, complaint, or negative comment referenced in your response to Special Interrogatory No. 22 that you considered in your decision to not move forward with the BOAT STORAGE PROJECT.

In response to these interrogatories, Defendants raised a number of objections. Defendants also substantively responded to these interrogatories by invoking Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 and identifying responsive, previously produced documents by Bates number. Defendants also stated that it had produced “all non-privileged documents” “in its possession, custody, or control located after conducting a reasonable and diligent search.” Finally, Defendants stated that the documents already produced by Defendants “contain all of the contact information within [Defendants’] possession, custody, or control of individuals and/or entities who voiced opposition to the BOAT STORAGE PROJECT.”

The Court notes that it is undisputed that both the County and the Board’s responses were untimely. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), untimely responses result in the waiver of “any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” However, a party may be relieved from this waiver upon the court’s determination that the party subsequently served a response in substantial compliance with sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240, and that the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a) states that “[t]he court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver….”. The Court is inclined to either allow Defendants time to file such a motion or to treat the request in their opposition papers as such a motion, particularly in light of the circumstances identified for excusable

neglect. The Court will discuss this matter at the hearing along with the substantive issues raised in the briefs.

DATED: October 31, 2019 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC688063    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

MDR BOAT CENTRAL, L.P. et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 688063

Hearing Date:

October 25, 2019

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Defendants County of Los Angeles and the Board of Supervisors for the County of Los Angeles (jointly, “Defendants”) move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

The Court notes that the parties have collectively interposed over 150 evidentiary objections (153 of them by Defendants). Due to the voluminous evidentiary objections that were filed, the hearing on this motion will be set at the Hearing on Objections discussed below.

The Court orders the parties to meet and confer by telephone or in person in a serious and good faith effort to resolve and eliminate the objections. The only objections that should remain are those that pertain to material evidence regarding material issues. Keeping the rules of evidence in mind, the parties should be able to reduce the objections to just a few. If any material objections remain unresolved, the parties are to set them forth in a joint statement with the text, the objection, and the argument of each side in favor of their respective positions regarding the remaining material objections.

The joint statement must be filed with a courtesy copy directly in Department 50 by noon on _______________. The Court will review any remaining objections with the parties at a hearing on _______________ at 1:30 p.m. (the “Hearing on Objections”). The Court continues the hearing on the MSJ/MSA to that same date for resetting.

If necessary, based upon the resolutions reached during the meet and confer process and/or at the Hearing on Objections, the parties may respectively file and serve revised briefing and evidence. The revised evidence may eliminate objectionable material; however, no new evidence or new argument is to be submitted unless it is as a result of compromises reached during the meet and confer process. In the event that revised briefing and evidence is necessary, the Court will discuss with the parties a briefing schedule for the revised briefing at the Hearing on Objections.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: October 25, 2019

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court